Berryhill v. Trendle, 2026 ONSC 4326
Neighbour disputes often begin with something seemingly insignificant, a fence, a tree, or a few inches of concrete crossing a property line. Unfortunately, when emotions replace common sense, even the smallest disagreement can evolve into years of expensive litigation.
The Ontario Superior Court’s recent decision in Berryhill v. Trendle, 2026 ONSC 4326 serves as a powerful reminder that courts expect property owners to resolve minor disputes reasonably. When they do not, everyone can lose.
Facts
Annette and Michael Berryhill owned a home in Waterloo, Ontario, next door to Dennis Trendle and his partner, Doinita Roscanius.
For years, the neighbours enjoyed a friendly relationship. That relationship deteriorated in 2019 when the Berryhills became convinced that a concrete driveway extension installed by Trendle in 2003 extended onto their property.
Ironically, the concern appears to have originated from a Google Maps aerial image displaying approximate property lines rather than from a legal survey.
What followed was seven years of conflict.
The Berryhills commenced legal proceedings seeking:
- $70,000 in general, compensatory, exemplary and punitive damages,
- $25,000 in special damages,
- injunctions preventing future trespass, and
- declarations concerning ownership rights.
Trendle and Roscanius defended the claim and counterclaimed for $150,000, alleging the dispute had reduced the value of their property and prevented them from selling during a favourable real estate market.
The Real Issue
A professional Ontario Land Surveyor prepared a survey identifying the actual property line.
The evidence demonstrated that:
- the concrete driveway extension encroached only a few inches onto the neighbouring property,
- the encroachment resulted from a bowed wooden form during construction in 2003,
- the encroaching concrete was eventually removed, and
- Mr. Trendle occasionally stepped briefly onto the neighbouring property while accessing materials beside his garage.
Despite these relatively minor facts, the disagreement consumed years of hostility and litigation.
Court’s Decision
Justice Gibson dismissed every claim for damages.
No Nuisance
The Berryhills argued that the encroachment and occasional entries onto their property interfered with their enjoyment of their home.
The Court disagreed.
To establish nuisance, the interference must be both substantial and unreasonable.
Justice Gibson concluded that a concrete encroachment measuring only a few inches and momentary entries onto the property simply did not meet that legal threshold.
Moreover, the offending concrete had already been removed before trial.
The Plaintiffs Were Found to Have Acted Unreasonably
One of the more striking aspects of the decision is the Court’s criticism of the Berryhills’ conduct.
Justice Gibson found they refused to accept the professional survey and instead relied upon their own interpretation of aerial photographs.
They even painted orange lines on the ground marking what they believed to be the true boundary, despite the survey demonstrating otherwise.
The Court concluded that much of the emotional distress claimed by the Berryhills was self-generated through their continued obsession with the dispute rather than by any actionable conduct of the neighbours.
The $150,000 Counterclaim Also Failed
Trendle and Roscanius argued that the ongoing conflict reduced the value of their property and prevented a sale during a stronger real estate market.
The Court rejected that argument.
Although there was evidence suggesting values may have declined between 2022 and 2024, there was no evidence that the neighbour dispute caused the decline.
The property had never been sold, and the Court noted that significant fluctuations in Ontario’s real estate market following the COVID-19 pandemic made it impossible to attribute any loss in value to the litigation itself.
Without proof of causation, the claim failed.
The Court Order
The Court ordered:
- dismissal of the Berryhills’ claim,
- dismissal of the $150,000 counterclaim,
- a declaration confirming the property boundary exactly as shown on the professional survey, and
- each party to bear their own legal costs.
After seven years of litigation, neither side recovered damages.
Considerations for Property Owners and Real Estate Professionals
This decision contains several practical lessons.
1. A Professional Survey Prevails
Property boundaries are determined by legal surveys, not Google Maps, aerial photographs or personal assumptions.
2. Not Every Encroachment Justifies Litigation
Minor encroachments do not automatically give rise to damages. Courts distinguish between technical trespasses and meaningful interference with property rights.
3. Nuisance Requires More Than Irritation
To succeed in nuisance, the interference must be substantial, unreasonable and objectively serious.
4. Damages Must Be Proven
Whether claiming emotional distress or diminished property value, a plaintiff must establish both actual loss and a causal connection to the defendant’s conduct.
5. Litigation Should Be the Last Resort
Perhaps the most important lesson is practical rather than legal. Small disputes can quickly become disproportionately expensive and emotionally exhausting. As this case demonstrates, years of litigation may ultimately produce nothing more than confirmation of a survey that could have resolved the disagreement at the outset.
Conclusion
Berryhill v. Trendle is not simply a boundary dispute. It is a reminder that reasonableness remains a fundamental principle in property law.
Neighbour disputes should be approached with perspective, supported by professional evidence and resolved pragmatically whenever possible. Otherwise, the costs, both financial and personal, can far exceed the value of the issue that started the conflict.
Brian Madigan LL.B., Broker